About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 40 of about 41 (some duplicates have been removed)
'd like to take roll. commission president fong, here. commission vice president wu, here. iana, present, boren, hillis, here, moore, hee, sugaya, here. first on your calendar consideration for items proposed for continuance. item 1, for 1856 pacific avenue, discretionary reviews have been canceled. under your regular calendar, item 12, case 2012.1183t and z amendments to the planning code for fillmore street there's a request from the supervisor's office to continue this item to january 10, 2013. we have just learned that item 18 for case 2012.0928dd and d for 2000 20th street all drs have been withdrawn. the only action in your continuance calendar is for item 12, if you so wish. >> president fong: is there any public comment on item 12 for continuance. >> commissioner antonini: move to continue. >> the clerk: commission antonini, aye, borden, aye, hillis, aye, moore, aye, wu, aye. 7-0. consenticle considered to be retoon by the planning commission and will be acted on by a single roll call vote. there will be no discussion unless the public requests in which case it will be removed fr
-minute rebuttal. >> >> thank you. president fong and commissioners, i will be very brief. objective third party planning department has looked into this and they don't see anyway extraordinary privacy issues. they spent their time looking at the drawings and they did not see those privacy issues that the dr requester is mentioning. with regarding to the solar panels, they weren't there -- they added them after we proposed the project. and didn't take into consideration the project regardless at our own expense, at the request of the dr requester, we did a solar study. the reason why you are not hearing mention of the solar study because it clearly shows that it doesn't shade their panels, regardless of the fact that they used them as leverage against us to say we don't want this. and finally with regards to the stairs looking in, it would be remarkable to be able to look into a slanted bay window with the stairs. these are issues being brought up now. there was six months of silence from the dr requester where we continually asked them to talk to us and they didn't. thank you. >>
that the commission keep that in mind. thank you for your time. >> president fong: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i hope that this house will be built soon. i work in san francisco. and i pass by this property all the time because my church is in sunset, and also i have -- because i'm an insurance agent, so i drive around the neighborhood to take pictures of the houses. it seems this house has been vacant for so long it's an eyesore. when i pass by this house it caught my attention because it does not look good. and from the insurance agent's point of view that all the vacant houses, it has the intention to draw the squatters and interviewedders. and they -- intruders and they may go into vacant homes to do illegal activities. we hope this nice home, when i look at the pictures, it seems that it is conformed to the neighborhood and i hope that this project will be built soon so that it will not throw the bad people into the neighborhood. i feel that this nice project can improve and upgrade the whole neighborhood. thank you. >> president fong: thank you. is there any additional pu
is warranted. thank you. >> president fong: open it up to public comment. i have speaker cards when i call your name line up on this side of the room. jennifer ma, jill astralia sustof, daniel mccarthy, john wellpachuck, scott bureau and -- >> hi. my name is jennifer ma, i live adjacent to this property since 2003, same time has the houses went on sale and i've been living there since then. what you don't see is pictures of the mess in front of my house that we constantly have to clean. i've lived there since 2003 and have not seen any of the people standing back there and i have neighbors that would be supportive of that. i want to state that clearly right now. so i live in the city most of my life, raised my kids in the house we live in now. we bought the house. we enjoyed the the look and feel of the neighborhood and want to continue to do that. we know the neighbors, my daughter is at preschool, we're vested in living in this area and we're engaged in the area, look out for each other and look forward to spending many more years living there. recently the lease has arranged a meeting to dis
aye hillis aye. >> would? no commissioner president fong. >> so moved that commissioner passes four to three with commissioners moore, sag guya and voting against. >> i heard there was cp to allow ground floor reds terrible mr. teeing is that something that you were putting before us here,. >> sure and it's something that i'm hypothecate putting before you as a package because of the affordable housing trust fund created a scenario where we could not increase affordable housing requirements lieu a new rezonings and legislation and through certain exemptions one being that the site was getting 20% bump in gross developable area the problem with ct and the regional commercial district is while they permanent housing on every floor, on the ground floor of large project, they restrict it and they don't permit it and so, to meet that 20% criteria in the charter, we would need to remove that planning prohibition of residential uses in the district on large sites on the ground floor and then in the other piece to that puzzle was also amendment aiming the zoning map resolution to r
the proceedings. i'd like to take roll. commission president fong, here. commission vice president wu, here. iana, present boren, hillis, here moore hee sugaya here. first on your calendar consideration for items proposed for continuance. item 1 for 1856 pacific avenue, discretionary reviews have been canceled. under your regular calendar, item 12 case 2012.1183t and z amendments to the planning code for fillmore street there's a request from the supervisor's office to continue this item to january 10 2013. we have just learned that item 18 for case 2012.0928dd and d for 2000 20th street all drs have been withdrawn. the only action in your continuance calendar is for item 12, if you so wish. >> president fong: is there any public comment on item 12 for for continuance. >> commissioner antonini: move to continue. >> the clerk: commission antonini, aye, borden, aye, hillis, aye, moore, aye wu aye,. 7-0. consenticle considered to be retoon by the planning commission and will be acted on by a single roll call vote. there
fong? >> here. >> commission vice president wu? >> here. >> commissioner antonini is here, but, commissioner borden? >> here. >> commissioner hillis? >> here. >> commissioner moore? >> here. >> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> commissioners, first on your item items proposed for continuance. item 1, case no. 2012.1381t, inclusionary housing updates, it is proposed for continuance december 30 13th, 2012. item 2, 2012.1306tz, review of two ordinances (planning code text amendment and zoning map amendment) that would rezone parcels in the upper market ncd to the upper market nct, planning code and zoning map amendments, proposed for continuance to february 21st, 2013. item 3, case no. 2012.1168c, 793 south van ness avenue, request for conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to january 24th, 2013. items 4a, b and c for case numbers 2009.0 724 d, 2012.0 888 d, and 2009.0 724 v at 2833 through 2835 fillmore street, mandatory discretionary reviews and variance have been withdrawn. further on your -- under your regular calendar, commissioners, item 15, case no. 20
and state your name for the record. at this time i will call roll. >> commissioner fong. >> here. >> commissioner wu. >> here. >> commissioner antonini. >> here. >> commissioner borden. >> commissioner sugaya. >> here. >> first is item one case at 1865 post street request for conditional use authorization is being proposed for continuance to february seven, 2013 at the request of the project sponsor requesting a further continuance than shown on the calendar. item two at 601 van ness avenue continual use continuance is requested. further under the regular calendar there is another request for item 15 at 2895 san bruno avenue request for continuance. that's all i have is there any public comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none. commissioner antonini. >> move to move items one and two to the date proposed and item 15 to january 17, 2013. >> second. >> >> on that motion to continue commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner wu. >> commissioner fong. >> aye. >> that passes seven to zero will wil
door or across the street from this property. thank you. >> president fong: thank you. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak. my name is daniel mccarthy. born and raised in san francisco, actually raised across the street at 415 vincente. i've been looking across at the old miller house and knew the millers well and now welcome our new neighbors in a brand new beautiful house. we'd love to see the old one disappear. for a number of years now, i look sd directly across at the millers and the mas and vincente street, from the front of my house is a very dark street, gets very little light. i look across at the mas and see how they have totally blinded by these huge horrible trees that come out of 422. i know that's not your issue. but now what is being proposed is that they cut off all of the light on their north side, and put them in a canyon. and they have got two little kids that, vincente is not a good street to be playing on. it's a very busy street. and i'm sure that the kids spend a lot of time in the backyard. to put them in a dark cavern i don't think is right. as i said
's my comments. >> president fong: is there additional public comment? seeing none, public comment portion is closed. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i'd like to put to the record that this is a mandatory discretionary review, and the issues, which the residential design team has addressed are those typically addressed in a mandatory discretionary review. i want to say that i think the review is extremely thorough, creative, and supportive of those ideas that are important to us as a commission. i want to comment taking it down from the top, the 15 foot setback from the street is something which this commission has asked the department to consistently implement. it's not 11 feet. it's not 12 feet. it's 15 feet where it occurs on the street side of a property which is larger than two stories, because this particular setback should not be seen from the front. so it's really not an issue to question, but just to accept because this commission has used this rule and over the years had the department strong implement the same 15 feet wherever that type of condition occurs. on
. >> commissioner. >> aye. commissioner. >> aye. >> and commissioner president fong. >> aye. >> so moved commissioners. that passes unanimously. >> and places you under item 11 western soma community plan adoption actions that include adoption of california environmental quality act findings, adoption of amendments to the general plan, amendments to the planning code, amendments to the zoning maps, amendments to the administrative code, and a resolution recommending approval of a program implementation document. >> good afternoon president fong, commissioners, cory teague for staff. you have before you the action items necessary for the adoption of the western soma community plan and it's associated rezoning and planning code amendments as well as administrative code implementation document. so just to be clear again about the specific actions in front of you. the first is to approve a resolution to adopt the ceqa findings, and then also approve recommendations to recommend that the board of supervisors adopt the general plan amendments, the planning code amendments, zoning map amendm
atmosphere as it does currently. thank you very much. >> good afternoon president fong and commission. i am john harny and own sell and lease buildings in the area. i felt better but it came as a surprise to you. yesterday i sent you each a letter outlining my concerns. in a nutshell restrictions will hindzer viablity and historic resources. two, western soma shouldn't have different rules than eastern neighborhoods for fairness and consistency reasons. three, the department staff without use restrictions the sheer number of historic buildings will run the office space in western soma. it's the department itself that did that and 40% of the buildings in soma survey. the department created the stumbling block they're trying to overcome at this hearing. my experience tells me many of the historic buildings can accommodate only a few thousand square feet. there is no threat of office gold rush in the historic western soma structures. number five, last year spur wrote a letter asking for environmental review to better analyze the impactings of western soma survey and specifically refere
. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. >> thank you. >> that motion passes +6 to -0. >> do you guys want a break here? >> really quick. >> i think we're going to take a quick -- yeah, five-minute break. thank you. >>please stand by; meeting in recess >> this is to develop a limited financial serve is e service sterling bank and trust at 115 pest portal avenue in the west portal neighborhood commercial district. the project is not considered for formula retail, formula retail exempts financial services. the proposed branch would occupy 199 square feet at the front of an existing commercial space. the department does not support this request because a large amount of commercial ground story frontage in the retail district is already occupied by several large scale financial institutions including bank of america, chase bank citibank, first america bank [speaker not understood]. their well served by these existing banks and other financial institutions in the district. in addition, the financial institution i
. >> [speaker not understood]. >> and commission president fong? >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 5 to 1. commissioners, that places you under item 20 for case no. 2012.1102d, 88 28th street, request for discretionary review. this is an abbreviated dr. >> good evening, planning commission, southwest [speaker not understood]. this would allow the alteration of an existing single-family residence by constructing a rear two-story horizontal addition and any partial third story [speaker not understood] middle residence with [speaker not understood] at the front and rear. the property is located at 88 28th street. the adr was filed by an abutting residence [speaker not understood]. it is still consistent with residential guidelines. [speaker not understood]. the adjacent residents to the east is two stories over a raised basin. this property, the subject property is a key lot in lot three residential properties, real property line above the property line above the subject parcel. the shallow rear yards of these abutting properties is somewhat of a typical feature in this neighborhood.
wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 6 to 1. excuse me, 6 to 0. commissioners, that will place you on item -- >> can i have a request? our person is on our way back. is it possible to change with item 20 and be made last? if you want us to present we will, but we just [speaker not understood]. >> i have to keep things rolling if you don't mind. keep it in the order they're on the agenda. thank you. >> okay, commissioners. item 19, 2012.0859d, 70 crestline drive, request for staff initiated discretionary review. >> good evening, commission president fong, members of the planning commission. department staff tom lam presenting a initial discretionary review on the property 70 crestline drive. the proposal is to subdivide the existing lot into two lots. and currently the subject lot contains a five-story over garage, 14-unit building. and [speaker not understood] subdivision, one southerly lot will contain the existing 14 unit building and the new vacant northerly lot will be [speaker not understood]. and then there is a fi
specifically to the eir during this period. that's the agenda item. >> president fong and commissioners, andrew greg here on behalf of mr. harny. he's here to speak to you later in the agenda on the historic resource controls. he sent a letter to the commission and copied to the director as well as the staff planner, but there is one portion of that correspondence -- copy of a letter sent to the hpc from spur which is eir related component. in their letter spur specifically asked for supplemental eir to be under taken and let just quote from that letter because it does pertain to western soma. this is from spur. "we believe that a supplemental eir for the eastern neighborhoods and the western soma must be completed prior to the survey findings in order to organize the findings on the development assumptions in those areas" so that's just the 1eir related component to what we're speaking about later, so this is the appropriate time. thank you. >> is there any additional general public comment? okay. >> public comment portion is closed. >> thank you commissioner. and that will place us und
of the project design. >> good afternoon president fong and members of commission. i am going to keep my comments very brief here. the subject property was considered in june of 2010 and june of this year for proposal to demolish the church. this commission cited concerns no. 1 about the demolition of the existing church which is considered an historic resource under ceqa, but also to do with what i would collective call the compatibility. the project sponsor has been working collaboratively with planning department staff and with representatives of the community in an attempt to address staff concerns, community members concerns and issues raised by this commission at previous hearings. so i will turn it over to the project sponsor to address the specific ways in which the project has evolved and is continuing to evolve. thank you very much. i am available for questions. good afternoon commissioners and president, my name is ian birchel and represent the project sponsor and i would like to present the late design that we have developed with significant input from members of community a
very much. >> thank you. >> project sponsor, please. >>> good evening, president fong and commissioners, my name is steve adams. i am the managing director of the sterling bank and trust here in san francisco. and, yes, we did try to open up a limited use bank branch several years ago and we were denied. things have changed in these last six years. first off, we are a limited use bank bran. . we are not a full bank branch. the other institutions * that were described are national banks. we are community banks. we are a community bank based here in san francisco. with our branches here in san francisco and one in burlingame. for six years i have tried to lease out this space. i have had gladys real estate and cb ellis try to rent the space out. i had one offer from a company called cheaper cigarette. and because of my neighborhood, because i get involved in other neighborhood groups, i could not lease that space out to a cigarette vendor. and, so, i've had no other offers in that many years. and then i've had no offers for the last three years since that offer and it's just sitting ther
for student housing conversions. >> good afternoon, president fong, members of the commission. cynthia hayward, planning staff. this ordinance was proposed by supervisor kim and i see that [speaker not understood] from her staff is here. so, with your permission i'd like to turn the presentation over to him to begin. >> members of the commission, president fong. so, we are here talking about student housing again. we felt when the discussion came to the board, there was a piece missing and we recognize all the work that has gone into the original legislation that supervisor wiener introduced and to not hold all that work up and the new incentives to a commonly acknowledged goal of building new student housing up by creating a new requirement and amending the original legislation. we introduced trailing legislation. the process for us was clear. there were advantages and bonuses offered in the original legislation and legislation passed by supervisor, then supervisor dufty. and we believe to track accurately what was happening with new student housing was a must. we looked, to my experience, th
president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. >> just a quick announcement. a little bit of unusual calendar today. we have a time certain item at 3 o'clock. we're going to take the next item and then after that hear the 3 o'clock. i think it's item number 17, thank you. so, the next one tehama, please. >> commissioners, before you are items 17 a and b, for case numbers 2008.0801e, x and v, 41 tehama street, request for determination of compliance and variance. >> good afternoon, president fong and member of the commission. my name is [speaker not understood]. if i could have the laptop screen on the overhead, please. the request before you today is for several actions regarding the project at 41 tehama street which would construct a 31 story building reaching a roof height of approximately 318 feet. the mechanical enclosure reaching a height of 342 feet. it contains 3 25 dwelling units, 700 square feet of retail space, 2 41 off-street parking spaces, and a plaza and mid-block open space -- sorry, mid-block connection to the [speaker not underst
president fong members of the commission. i am andreas conterrace. i am with the planning department. this is the eir for the western soma community plan, rezoning of adjacent proposals and the project. a copy of the draft eir certification motion was distributed with you with the standard document. the draft eir was published on june 20, 2012 and the public hearing was held and public comment closed and the responses document was distributed and published on november 21, 2012. you also have before you a e rata street that has revisions in the environmental documents. there are extras copies on the side table for the public. these represent corrections in the e ie.d r and comments and responses document. these text changes do not present any new information that would awlter the conclusions presented in the draft eir and these changes below do not need to trigger to recirculate the eir based on the california environmental act. these corrections include proposed height and bulk district where we have stated 65k or 65x in the eir. the text should read 65b so that is a correcti
Search Results 0 to 40 of about 41 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)